EditorialOzaukee Press, founded in 1940 as Wisconsin's first offset newspaper is published weekly in Port Washington. For subscription information go to http://www.ozaukeepress.com.http://www.ozaukeepress.com/editorials
Thu, 14 Dec 2017 02:09:48 +0000Joomla! 1.5 - Open Source Content Managementen-gbWhere’s a new Teddy when we need him?http://www.ozaukeepress.com/editorials/9639-wheres-a-new-teddy-when-we-need-him
http://www.ozaukeepress.com/editorials/9639-wheres-a-new-teddy-when-we-need-himGood old Teddy Roosevelt. Government officials love to publicly praise the charismatic 26th president of the United States. If only more of them would act like him. In his letter to the editor in last week’s Ozaukee Press announcing he would not seek re-election, Port Washington Mayor Tom Mlada cited Theodore Roosevelt as his inspiration in serving his city. Roosevelt is a fine exemplar for public servants, even small-town mayors, but it is a stretch to think he would have approved of Mlada’s relentless effort to sell public land overlooking the water for a commercial development called the Blues Factory. Roosevelt’s legacy, after all, is his saving of millions of acres of America’s land from commercial development by protecting it in the public trust. On a national scale, even officials who are attacking that legacy grasp for some of TR’s reflected glory. Ryan Zinke, the secretary of the interior, frequently compares himself to Roosevelt and in an asinine display of self-aggrandizement rode a horse to his first day of work in the Trump administration in imitation of the great conservationist who took office as president 117 years ago. Now Zinke is leading his boss’s assault on public lands that were designated as national monuments under the authority of the Antiquities Act of 1906, which historians consider one of Theodore Roosevelt’s greatest achievements. President Trump, who Vice President Mike Pence has said is “reminiscent of President Teddy Roosevelt,” last week withdrew two million acres of land precious for its majestic landscape and Native American antiquities from two national monuments in Utah. Other national monument lands are on a list compiled by the interior secretary as candidates to be stripped of federal protection. No justification would suffice for abandoning public lands as valuable for their unique and irreplaceable natural and cultural features as these, but the Trump administration’s attempt at a rationale is remarkably flaccid—that America needs the fossil fuels buried in the lands. It is true that business interests in Utah have lusted for years for the coal and oil buried in the Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bear Ears monuments that Trump has now made vulnerable, but with many energy producers rejecting coal as too dirty and the country awash in cheap oil and natural gas, there is no benefit to the nation in mining and pumping these modest reserves, especially at the cost of damaging nature in some of its most beautiful manifestations. There are no national monument lands or waters in Wisconsin, but there is much in the environment of this state—long considered the cradle of the conservation movement—that needs protection. Like Trump, Gov. Scott Walker has been busy weakening environmental protection under the sham argument that complying with regulations is a hardship for business. Seeming to take a page out of the Trump environmental protection dismantling manual, Walker this month appointed an outspoken political foe of the Department of Natural Resources, former Ozaukee County Board member Jake Curtis, as the agency’s chief legal counsel, a move reminiscent of Trump’s appointment of Scott Pruitt, who proposed doing away with the Environmental Protection Agency, as the agency’s administrator. Walker topped his already dismal environmental record earlier this year by making the Foxcon electronics plant to be built in Racine county exempt from the environmental protection rules every other business in the state is required to follow. Foxcon will not even have to file an environmental impact statement for a plant that is expected to be three times larger than the Pentagon under the free environmental passes Walker threw in to sweeten a pot that was already full with $3 billion in taxpayer subsidies for the company. At least Walker has not, as far as we know, named Teddy Roosevelt as one of his personal heroes. Thank goodness. The name of the legendary protector of America’s natural assets has already been taken in vain far too often.]]>brook@sailingmagazine.net (Ozaukee Press)EditorialsWed, 13 Dec 2017 16:03:12 +0000Wheel tax push invites spending questionshttp://www.ozaukeepress.com/editorials/9625-wheel-tax-push-invites-spending-questions
http://www.ozaukeepress.com/editorials/9625-wheel-tax-push-invites-spending-questionsThe mayor of Port Washington wants the city to join a very select group of Wisconsin municipalities—the fewer than 1% of them that require their residents to pay a wheel tax. Mayor Tom Mlada is urging the Common Council to impose a $20 per year tax on vehicles owned by city residents—$40 a year for a typical two-car family. Wheel taxes are levied by only 16 of the state’s 1,931 cities, villages and counties. The taxes are collected by the state Department of Motor Vehicles and have to be spent for street and road maintenance in the taxing municipality. Wisconsin’s limits on local tax levies and state transportation aid that has failed to keep pace with rising construction costs make it a challenge for most communities to meet their responsibility to provide well-maintained streets and roads. Yet barely a handful resort to a wheel tax, a move that suggests fiscal desperation. If Port Washington is really in those straits, taxpayers no doubt would like to know why before being burdened with another tax. Mayor Mlada’s proposal to levy a vehicle tax on top of the property taxes paid by home and business owners invites questions about the city’s spending priorities. One of those priorities was on display two weeks ago when the council voted to spend $85,000 to shore up the site for the Blues Factory entertainment complex. (Ald. Mike Gasper voted against it.) The expenditure, when previous payments for contamination mitigation and other costs are factored in, likely raises the bill to taxpayers to more than $100,000 to make the site suitable for a risky commercial development that has attracted furious opposition. Not a penny of that would have to be spent if the mayor and a previous council had not insisted, in the face of strong citizen opposition, on selling the publicly owned marina parking lot for the Blues Factory. There would be no structural and environmental issues if the use of the land remained parking or if, as has been suggested, it is improved as a combined harbor overlook area and parking lot. Considering the widespread opposition to the Blues Factory, it is safe to say that many Port Washington taxpayers would prefer that the $100,000 to be paid to prepare the site—an amount equal to half of one year’s estimated wheel tax revenue—would be spent on repaving deteriorated city streets. The high cost of site preparation is not the only fiscal issue dogging the Blues Factory. In its generosity to the developer, the city government has agreed to sell the site at a 50% discount—$250,000 for public land appraised at $500,000. Further, it will take years to recover the $1 million in taxpayer incentives the city has agreed to throw into the deal, which has a closing date of Jan. 18, 2018. Concerning the wheel tax, Mayor Mlada has discouraged the idea of holding a referendum on the tax on the grounds that getting voters to say yes “would be an uphill climb.” Perhaps a similar fear of a no vote was the reason the mayor and council members ignored petitions signed by about 1,000 city residents asking for a referendum on selling the marina lot for the Blues Factory. Had that referendum been held, a no vote (a reasonable expectation) would have saved taxpayers at least $100,000—money that could be spent to fix streets—and saved Port Washington from the intrusion of a commercial building that many in the city believe does not belong on their lakefront.]]>brook@sailingmagazine.net (Ozaukee Press)EditorialsWed, 06 Dec 2017 20:16:44 +0000Breaking news: City officials discover lake viewshttp://www.ozaukeepress.com/editorials/9586-breaking-news-city-officials-discover-lake-views
http://www.ozaukeepress.com/editorials/9586-breaking-news-city-officials-discover-lake-viewsEureka! A remarkable discovery has been made at City Hall. Port Washington officials have found the lake views that would be destroyed by the Blues Factory. The discovery is significant because some in the city government seemed to doubt the views exist. Others said that even if they do exist they aren’t worth saving. Now Plan Commission members are saying there really are views from the Blues Factory site at the edge of the marina that should be preserved and, what’s more, the development should be modified to enhance them. Even an alderman who is one of the last surviving Blues Factory advocates on the Common Council (others having been removed by voters opposed to the development) agrees. How to account for this discovery? Developers led the city to it. Readers couldn’t be blamed for thinking this is further evidence that Port’s elected and appointed officials listen more to developers than to the public. It is true that many citizens have told Common Council members and the mayor the Blues Factory should not be built on the marina site because it would shut off public lake views, and there were few if any signs the elected representatives were listening as they bent over backwards to accommodate the developer of the entertainment complex. But the developers the city is now listening to are speaking the public’s language. In their plans for a 10-unit condominium building on the Port Harbor Center property, owners Jim Vollmar and Don Voight are proposing that the adjacent Blues Factory be scaled back to allow expanded visual and physical lakefront access between the two buildings. As the plan for the Blues Factory stands, the building, which in an unfortunate play on the name of the enterprise is designed to resemble a factory, would be built close to the proposed condos with only an alleyway in between. Drawings of the handsomely designed condominium structure show the space between the buildings widened to accommodate an expanded public area overlooking the marina. The proposal is a waft of fresh air over the yearslong controversy. It already seems to have opened some eyes and some minds. It could do even more good for the community by serving as the impetus for a move to end altogether the threat of a commercial building on the marina site. That site will soon be virtually surrounded by high residential buildings, making it more necessary than ever that it remain under public ownership as an island of open space from which to appreciate the fortunate proximity of the downtown to Lake Michigan. The land, now a parking lot, is an ideal candidate to be improved as a “pocket park” (while retaining some space for much needed marina district parking). The term was used at a recent Plan Commission meeting by member Brenda Fritsch in some thoughtful comments on the Harbor Center condo proposal for enhanced public space. “There has been a huge concern about green space there,” she said, alluding to the enduring public opposition to the Blues Factory. “These pocket parks are essential.” Praising the idea of preserving space for people to enjoy the waterfront and its views, she added, “A view only exists if you go down there and sit.” At the same meeting, Ald. Mike Ehrlich contributed the statement, “The entry to the harbor is pivotal.” That’s another discovery, a welcome one by a council member who has at every opportunity heretofore supported a brick and mortar impediment to that entry to the harbor. It’s time for another discovery at city hall, time to discover what is becoming more obvious by the day—that the north slip lot beside the marina, with its views and intimacy with the water, should not be taken from the public for an entertainment business.]]>brook@sailingmagazine.net (Ozaukee Press)EditorialsWed, 29 Nov 2017 16:05:24 +0000Start draining the swamp by draining the ethanol tankshttp://www.ozaukeepress.com/editorials/9559-start-draining-the-swamp-by-draining-the-ethanol-tanks
http://www.ozaukeepress.com/editorials/9559-start-draining-the-swamp-by-draining-the-ethanol-tanks“I will drain the swamp.” Donald Trump’s catchy and cleverly memorable slogan encapsulating a promise to rid Washington of the special interest lobbies that wield influence and money to bend government policy in their favor helped get him elected president. A year later, the swamp remains full to its slimy brim. So we have a suggestion for the president as a surefire way to start to make good on his pledge. Tell the American people: “I will drain the tanks.” The ethanol tanks, we mean. The ethanol mandate—federal law forcing the manufacture of a biofuel that helps no one except businesses that profit from it—is a stinky hunk of corporate welfare dripping with swamp ooze. The ethanol mandate proposed for 2018 will require the production of 19.24 billion gallons of the fuel, almost all of which will come from corn. This is testimony to the power of the swamp, because there is no doubt remaining that every one of those billions of gallons will do more harm than good. The last glimmer of a rationale for the ethanol mandate was that, in spite of all of its negative trappings, it might at least be a bit of hedge against global warming by providing an alternative to fossil fuel. Our own University of Wisconsin-Madison has now exposed that as either wishful thinking or propaganda from the swamp. A study by the UW Department of Geography published last week showed that ethanol contributes significantly to the carbon emissions that cause global warming. The research found that the cultivating of more than 7 million acres of land expressly to grow corn to meet the ethanol quota released a massive amount of carbon into the atmosphere. The researchers calculated that the carbon emissions caused by tilling land to produce corn for ethanol is equivalent to 20 million additional vehicles driving on American roads every year. The UW findings add an exclamation point to the litany of reasons the ethanol mandate should be scrapped. First among them is that it hurts taxpayers and consumers. The more than $12 billion given annually by the federal government to ethanol producers and growers of corn for ethanol in tax breaks, direct cash payments and crop insurance subsidies takes tax dollars away from other needs—infrastructure for one—and adds to the deficit. The ethanol mandate penalizes consumers with rising food costs by driving up the price of corn needed for livestock feed and as an ingredient in numerous food products. At the same time, it reduces the food supply needed for a hungry world. American farmers grow 40% of the planet’s corn. Thanks to the ethanol mandate, a steadily increasing amount of it is being used to power internal combustion engines instead of feeding starving humans. In creating a huge artificial demand for ethanol, the mandate has become an environmental blight, causing vast areas of prairies, wetlands, pastures and farmland once used for crops more benign than the soil-depleting, fertilizer and pesticide-dependant corn to be converted to corn production. For good measure, ethanol is a lousy fuel. Even when it makes up only 10% of a gallon of gasoline it can make car and truck engines less fuel efficient and prone to corrosion and is harmful to small gas engines. The ethanol mandate is a bipartisan sin, supported by Democrats and Republicans. It could once be said in defense of the members of Congress who enacted the mandate in 2007 that they at least had a plausible reason, which was to lessen America’s need for foreign oil. That reason is now null and void. The U.S. is essentially tied with Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest oil producer and dependence on imported petroleum is no longer an issue. Well, then, what is President Trump doing about draining the part of the swamp occupied by the ethanol lobby? Nothing. Actually, less then nothing. He instructed Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt to not just support the 2018 ethanol quota but to consider increasing it. We can’t help wonder whether either one of them sees the irony in crippling or killing effective environmental protection regulations, as they have been doing relentlessly, while bestowing their blessing on one that is demonstrably harmful. The swamp rules. Drain the swamp. Start by draining the tanks. ]]>brook@sailingmagazine.net (Ozaukee Press)EditorialsTue, 21 Nov 2017 18:46:13 +0000Insult on top of injury for frugal school districtshttp://www.ozaukeepress.com/editorials/9533-insult-on-top-of-injury-for-frugal-school-districts
http://www.ozaukeepress.com/editorials/9533-insult-on-top-of-injury-for-frugal-school-districtsIt’s a pity Gov. Scott Walker and a delegation of influential members of the Wisconsin Legislature did not attend the Oct. 25 meeting of the Cedar Grove-Belgium School Board. No one expected them to be there, of course. Some of these powerful politicians might never even have heard of the school district that serves the residents of two small villages and the surrounding rural area in northern Ozaukee County and southern Sheboygan County. Well, maybe some of them read the news story about the meeting in Ozaukee Press. That might have opened their eyes a bit. In the article by Belgium reporter Mitch Maersch, board members voiced angst over the plight of small school districts that seemed so deeply felt it was almost palpable. “Do you think the legislators even understand what they’re doing?” Board President Chad Hoopman asked at one point. The answer from Kris DeBruine, the district’s business manager, was succinct: “No, they don’t.” The dialogue took place at a special meeting called to approve the budget and tax levy. The board accomplished that, with the result that school taxes will be slightly lower next year. But the process was painful nonetheless because it was affected by the profound unfairness of state mandates on public school funding. The unfairness is that small school districts like Cedar Grove-Belgium that for years demonstrated spending restraint are forced to subsist on far less funding per student than big districts with histories of extravagant spending. The state revenue limits on school districts are based on the level of per-student spending in effect in 1993. Districts that were frugal have been penalized ever since with more stringent revenue limits than the big spenders. DeBruine gave the example of the Nicolet High School District of Glendale. It operates with state and local tax revenue of $19,000 per student per year, about twice as much as the limit for Cedar Grove-Belgium. Especially galling to the CG-B board members was the fact that a measure of relief from this glaring inequity was in sight before it was snatched away. The budget approved by the Legislature in September raised the revenue limit for low-spending districts. The increase, described by its sponsor, Rep. John Nygren (R-Marquette), as “an opportunity to correct a long-term inequity in our K-12 funding system,” was about to become law—and then the governor vetoed it. The severely tilted revenue playing field also makes it harder for low-spending districts to deal with the erosion of public school funding caused by the Legislature’s expansion of the private school voucher program. The same budget that in the end gave no help to beleaguered low-revenue districts increased voucher amounts and raised the income limit, making more families eligible for taxpayer-paid private school tuition subsidies. Public school districts in effect pay the subsidies by having to forfeit state aid for every student from the district who attends a private school with vouchers. The voucher program will cost the Cedar Grove-Belgium district $112,000 in state aid this year. “Really,” the business manager explained accurately, “the local taxpayers are paying for the vouchers.” The nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau estimates that the voucher program will shift as much as $800 million in state funding from public schools to private schools over the next decade. Wisconsin public schools have taken one hit after the other during the Walker years. For the first time in his tenure, state aid to public schools was increased in the new budget. It’s long overdue, but at $200 per student it does little to make up for the prolonged squeeze on public school funding and has no effect on the skewed revenue limits. Members of the Cedar Grove-Belgium School Board could give state officials an earful about that. Actually, they did. The governor and legislators just weren’t there to hear it.]]>brook@sailingmagazine.net (Ozaukee Press)EditorialsWed, 15 Nov 2017 18:08:54 +0000Social media can be hazardous to truthhttp://www.ozaukeepress.com/editorials/9516-social-media-can-be-hazardous-to-truth
http://www.ozaukeepress.com/editorials/9516-social-media-can-be-hazardous-to-truthFree speech has limits. The classic exception frequently cited in academic discussions before the invention of the internet as an example of harmful speech undeserving of protection by the First Amendment was crying “Fire!” falsely in a crowded theater and causing dangerous panic. In the internet age, the equivalent of “Fire!” is shouted many times every day, and often panic ensues. This happens on social media, where anyone is free to say anything—true or false, innocent or malicious, benign or harmful. Social media giants Facebook and Twitter are under fire in Congress for allowing their platforms to be used by Russia to influence the American presidential election with a massive disinformation campaign, but there is a telling example of the consequences of misleading social media communication much closer to home. The example is a story of how panic, or at least “mild hysteria,” as a police spokesman characterized it, resulted from rumors spread on social media by Port Washington High School students and some of their parents that caused more than 100 students to skip school on Oct. 27. The story illustrates not only the pernicious effect of bogus information broadcast by social media, but also the power of the likes of Facebook to drown out accurate information disseminated by trusted institutions. It started, fittingly, with social media posts by a Port High student who called himself “Mr. Yeah” on Snapchat, which led to an exchange with other students, including the comment, “I’m going to kill myself Friday night at 11:59 p.m. and the auditorium.” (Police said he meant to type “at” the auditorium.) The post was brought to the attention of school administrators and police, who tracked down Mr. Yeah, arrested him and put him in the county jail. Authorities quickly determined the threat was not legitimate. High school Principal Eric Burke said that based on the police investigation it was clear that the incident amounted to “a student being inappropriate with social media.” Nevertheless, both school and police authorities took pains to allay any fears the incident might have raised. The Port Washington Police Department issued a press release and the high school sent an email to parents, both messages clearly explaining the situation and reporting the fact that the student who was responsible for it had been arrested and was in jail. This well-handled outreach to the community occurred on Wednesday, Oct. 25. Overnight, rumors and statements that seemed deliberately false, including made-up claims that police had arrested the wrong person and that the culprit who made threats was on the loose, spread over social media. By Thursday morning the high school and police department had to deal with parents demanding to know if it was safe to send their children to school. The high school principal sent another email to parents stating flatly: “There were no threats to students or our school.” Yet more than 100 students, about 15% of the student body, did not show up for classes on Friday. Police Captain Michael Keller said officers interviewed some of the students who started or passed along rumors on social media. “They admitted they didn’t know what they were talking about,” he said. “A lot of this was caused by students using social media, which got parents worked up, and all of a sudden we had a bit of mild hysteria on our hands.” Though this may seem like small stuff at a time when false information spread on the internet can destroy reputations and skew elections, it is a vivid display of how easily irresponsible use of social media can become a negative force. Social media, whose place in society is now about as certain as death and taxes, are not going away, but their empowering of misinformation has to be addressed. Facebook and Twitter have some culpability, especially in allowing their networks to be vulnerable to propaganda, but so too do the users of social media, including those who without malicious intent share the misinformation, rumors and the concocted false narratives that inspired the term fake news. The reason for the existence of the internet is to inform, and yet much of the responsibility for the damage to truth caused by social media falls on users who are poorly informed, gullible and unable or unwilling to separate fact from fiction. It has been suggested that the energetic exchange by the Port students of wild rumors born in fantasy rather than any semblance of fact was an internet-era ploy by teenagers to facilitate playing hooky. That is almost a comforting explanation; after all, scheming to find a legal way to legally skip school has been a time-honored tradition for many generations of students. But we have to ask: What were the adults thinking? Concern about their children’s safety is certainly understandable, but did more than 100 sets of parents really buy into rumors that had no more reason to be taken seriously than that they appeared on Facebook, Twitter or Snapchat?]]>brook@sailingmagazine.net (Ozaukee Press)EditorialsWed, 08 Nov 2017 16:00:05 +0000Tax politics threaten retirement savingshttp://www.ozaukeepress.com/editorials/9489-tax-politics-threaten-retirement-savings
http://www.ozaukeepress.com/editorials/9489-tax-politics-threaten-retirement-savingsShould American workers finance a massive tax cut for businesses by giving up some of their retirement savings? That may sound like a dumb question, but it is being asked seriously in the U.S. Congress. The central feature of the tax law changes being considered by Congress is to reduce the business tax rate from 35% to 20%. The resulting loss of revenue, along with tax cuts for high-income payers, is forecast to add $5 trillion to the federal deficit over 10 years. This conflicts with a congressional rule that requires that changes in tax policy have no effect on the federal budget in 10 years. Which is why some in Congress want to severely limit the 401(k) plans millions of Americans depend on for retirement income. Republicans have been trying to keep the details of their tax overhaul plan under wraps, but members of Congress have said it calls for a drastic reduction in the cap on 401(k) contributions. The proposal would impose a $2,400 annual limit on contributions—a mere one-tenth of the $24,000 cap now in effect for workers age 50 and older and more than $15,000 lower than the $18,000 annual cap for younger workers. The 40l(k) program is in the sights of those bent on cutting business taxes to the level demanded by President Trump because it allows participants to defer paying taxes on contributions until the money is withdrawn. Limiting contributions would instantly bring in more tax revenue from workers to help offset tax-cut losses. William Gale, a former economic adviser to President George H.W. Bush now with the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, called the proposed caps “just an enormous budget gimmick . . . raiding future revenues to pay for current tax cuts.” This is retrograde policy at its worst, concocted to serve a political agenda and threatening to take the quality of life of families backward by denying them adequate access to the retirement program more Americans depend on than any other besides Social Security. Since 1980, when the program was added to the tax code, 401(k) accounts have become the most common employer-sponsored retirement plans. They are more important now than ever because company pension plans have mostly disappeared. The $2,400 annual cap would be too small to add up to a comfortable next egg and would likely discourage many workers from even bothering to sign up for their employer’s 401(k) plan. The genius of 401(k) is not just that it gives workers control over their retirement savings; it is also that it enables them to participate in the country’s economic growth by investing in the stock market with the professional guidance that is included with most 40l(k) programs and paid for by employers. The threat to the retirement plans opens another window on political hypocrisy. Advocates for cutting the business tax by more than 40% argue it’s needed to stimulate the economy, yet to facilitate it they would restrict workers’ ability to enjoy the fruits of that prosperity by severely limiting the amount of their earnings they can contribute to 401(k) stock and bond investments. President Trump said he would not sign a tax bill that does not cut the business tax to 20%. Then he tweeted there should be no change in the “great and popular middle class tax break” of the 40l(k) program. People who have learned that the president’s views have a short shelf life were probably not surprised when he said a few days later that it was all right if the 401(k) proposal was part of legislative negotiation. A survey taken last year found that three-fourths of Americans fear they won’t have enough money to support themselves through retirement. Sadly, there will be good reason for that number to grow if 401(k) is crippled for a tax cut.]]>brook@sailingmagazine.net (Ozaukee Press)EditorialsWed, 01 Nov 2017 17:13:05 +0000The Town of Grafton is not a firing rangehttp://www.ozaukeepress.com/editorials/9474-the-town-of-grafton-is-not-a-firing-range
http://www.ozaukeepress.com/editorials/9474-the-town-of-grafton-is-not-a-firing-rangeIt would be no surprise if a scientific analysis of the soil in areas of the Town of Grafton revealed an abnormally high content of lead. Thousands of rounds of ammunition have been fired over that land. The Town of Grafton, particularly the part along Highway C between Port Washington and Lakefield Road, was once the home of some of the most intensely hunted public hunting grounds in the state. On opening day of upland game season, the shoulders of Highway C were parked chock-a-block with hunters’ vehicles. When the hundreds of hunters took to the fields and legal hunting started on a Saturday noon, the barrage could have passed for the thunder of a military assault. Much of the lead in the ground is no doubt in the form of No. 6 shot, the shotgun-shell pellet size favored by pheasant hunters. The Grafton hunting grounds were pheasant-hunting nirvana, thanks to the great numbers of the gaudy birds planted in the fields rented from farmers for public hunting by the DNR. This is not ancient history. Hunting was flourishing in rural Grafton as late as the last quarter of the 20th century. Then things changed. Homes popped up in what once were the wide-open spaces. Subdivisions consumed vast tracts of former farmland. An enormous shopping complex rose a short distance from the hunting grounds. Today, though crops are still grown on some land under contract, working farms are a thing of the past in the Town of Grafton. Residential development is surging. Town roads are busy, not with the vehicles of hunters, but with commuters, sightseers, bike riders, runners and walkers and people bound for the beauty and serenity of the county park created adjacent to the one-time hunting grounds, Lion’s Den Gorge Nature Preserve. The character of the area has changed to the point where shooting must be considered mostly an obsolete pastime in the Town of Grafton. And certainly, shooting rifles that fire high-velocity bullets, which unlike the short-range shotgun loads that once fell on the hunting grounds can fly for miles, cannot be considered safe in the current town environment. The more than 30 people wearing camouflage clothing who confronted the Grafton Town Board on Oct. 11 obviously disagree. They exercised their right as citizens to show up en masse to protest the town government’s restrictions on shooting ranges and expansion of the town’s no-discharge zone. Town Chairman Lester Bartel explained why the restrictions are needed: “We have received legitimate complaints about people coming out on weekends and firing hundreds of rounds of high-powered ammo, which has been scaring the bejeebers out of people.” In February, the board acted to put a stop to the use of land on Arrowhead Road, not far from the I-43 business district, for a firing range. Now the problem seems to have moved to the eastern part of the town near Highway C. Residents have reported prolonged firing of numerous guns and even shooting after dark. To be clear, this is not hunting; it’s shooting for the fun of shooting. The citizens who appeared at the board meeting to object to firearms restrictions were reacting to letters sent to owners of property where shooting has been taking place informing them that firing ranges are not allowed in the town. The residents were also informed of a possible amendment to the town’s nuisance ordinance that would further restrict the use of guns. The Town Board in on the right track. The type of shooting that is “scaring the bejeebers” out of some residents is simply not compatible with life in the town in the 21st century. Safety is the heart of the issue, but it is appropriate that the problem is being addressed under the nuisance ordinance—because the racket and anxiety caused by the shooting are truly a nuisance, one that people seeking the peace and quiet of the countryside should not have to endure. One of the firearms enthusiasts protesting the restrictions told the board, “I moved to the Town of Grafton so I could shoot.” His disappointment is understandable. The Town of Grafton is a nice place to live and shooting guns is a perfectly acceptable hobby that gives enjoyment to many, but the two do not go together. ]]>brook@sailingmagazine.net (Ozaukee Press)EditorialsWed, 25 Oct 2017 16:16:36 +0000A city without a grocery store?http://www.ozaukeepress.com/editorials/9433-a-city-without-a-grocery-store
http://www.ozaukeepress.com/editorials/9433-a-city-without-a-grocery-store“A good corporate citizen.” People in Port Washington are using those words to describe Sanfilippo Sentry, the city’s only supermarket. They are not using them to describe the new owner of the NorthPort Shopping Center, and for a good reason: That company’s restrictions on its property could leave the city with no grocery store at all. PJR Properties LLC of Sheboygan, an affiliate of the Piggly Wiggly Midwest supermarket chain, bought the shopping center in August and is advertising the space occupied by Sentry for lease with the restriction that it not be used by a supermarket. Besides leaving Port Washington without a food market for perhaps the first time in its 182-year history, the demise of Sentry would eliminate a competitor to the Piggly Wiggly market in Saukville. Sentry owner Joe Sanfilippo’s lease will expire May 30, 2018. Though he has the option to extend it, there are indications he wants to sell the business. But that option is complicated by the restriction against renting to another supermarket operator. The possibility of a thriving community of nearly 12,000 people not having a store that sells the fundamental necessity of life is a measure of economic evolution. When Port Washington’s population was about half its current size, the city had as many as eight grocery stores, plus three meat markets, two bakeries and two fish stores. Any one of today’s supermarkets likely has more food offerings than all of those stores combined. Size and variety are not the only aspects of the food business that have changed. So has the competition—it’s fierce. Even though Sentry is the sole supermarket in Port, competitors are but a few minutes’ drive from the city’s west side, and it is no secret that Sanfilippo Sentry has had plenty of challenges. But make no mistake, the loss of Sentry would be a blow. For many residents, it’s a convenient alternative to the two big Saukville markets, Walmart and Piggly Wiggly. As a competitor to those stores, it’s part of a dynamic that helps careful shoppers find the best food values. People who live near Sentry and appreciate the benefits of needing only a short drive, or maybe a walk, to buy groceries would especially miss it. And there’s more at stake. The perceived inability to support a grocery store would dull some of the lustre on the city’s image as a progressive community attractive to new residents and businesses. It would not go unnoticed that the other Ozaukee County communities of Port’s size, as well as the smaller Village of Saukville, have no dearth of supermarkets. A fond hope occasionally voiced in the city is that Sendik’s, the independent, Wisconsin-owned and much respected supermarket company that has stores in Mequon and Grafton, would come to town and succeed Sentry in the NorthPort Shopping Center. That’s probably a fantasy, and in any case the anti-competitor restrictions stand in the way. To its credit, Port Washington’s city government has taken a role in trying to save or replace Sanfilippo Sentry. It is the right thing to do, but the city’s options are limited by the lack of a building suitable for a supermarket other than the restricted NorthPort Shopping Center space. Nonetheless, there is some hope that incentives offered by the city will attract a buyer that could carry on the Sentry business under the lease. Against a deadline of October 31 for informing his landlord he intends to extend the lease, Joe Sanfilippo is working with city officials to find a way for the Sentry store to carry on under its lease, which is in keeping with his approach to doing business here. He has been a generous supporter of community causes. That is the characteristic of a good corporate citizen. What is not a characteristic of that is the message on the shopping center’s sign advertising for a new tenant for the Sentry space: “Not available for supermarket use.”]]>brook@sailingmagazine.net (Ozaukee Press)EditorialsWed, 18 Oct 2017 16:07:27 +0000 A new drug menace and no place is safehttp://www.ozaukeepress.com/editorials/9419--a-new-drug-menace-and-no-place-is-safe
http://www.ozaukeepress.com/editorials/9419--a-new-drug-menace-and-no-place-is-safeThere is no safe haven from this plague. Places like Ozaukee County—with its appealing suburban and rural character displayed in small communities with educated and relatively prosperous populations—were once unlikely to be touched by more than a glancing blow from the drug miseries that plague America’s biggest cities. No more. Drug addiction is now a fact of life here and virtually everywhere. And everyone is paying for it one way or another. Here is one way, as explained by Ozaukee County Administrator Jason Dzwinel: “Opioid addiction and mental health issues, which are pretty much entwined, drive a significant amount of our budget. Look at the case load in the child protective services and you’ll see it’s drastically up. We don’t have enough foster homes for kids. This is being driven by mental health problems and opioid addiction.” The costs are paid in other ways too: In drug addiction’s growing demands on local and county police and prosecutors; in the burden on health care resources; and, most tragically, in its human toll—the ruined lives of adults and the psychological and physical damage to the children of parents too dependent on drugs to care for them. It’s happening right here in our beloved small towns. There is no mystery about the cause of this pain. It is the addiction to prescription pain pills such as oxycodone that act like opium and heroin and are just as addictive. Addicts not only support a criminal black market in the drugs, but are vulnerable to becoming heroin users. The financial burden caused by opioids has become so significant that government agencies in many states are turning to the courts in the hope of compensation from the pharmaceutical companies that market narcotic pain pills. Ozaukee County has been asked to join a lawsuit brought by the Wisconsin Counties Association against so-called Big Pharma. The suit claims the companies should be made to pay because they “flooded the market with highly addictive drugs claiming they were safe and efficacious for long-term use, manufactured studies to support those false claims and knowingly misrepresented the addictive nature of these drugs.” There is no question the counties could use help in dealing with the opioid epidemic. Their state association asked the Walker administration for an additional $13.5 million is state funding for child and family services related to the epidemic, but were granted less than half of that in the state budget. Ozaukee County should sign on to the suit. As a plaintiff, it would only have to document its costs of dealing with the societal ills of opioid addiction. There would be no financial commitment, yet the county would share in any settlement or court-awarded payment. There are caveats, though. One is that winning the suit may be a long shot. Successful lawsuits by the states against tobacco companies are seen as the model for the litigation, but the parallels are fuzzy. Unlike cigarettes, the narcotic pain-killers are FDA approved medicine that when properly used serve a legitimate health care need. Another is that even a court victory with a big payoff, while it would help agencies cover the costs of dealing with the results of opioid addiction, would not slow the epidemic. That will take work to prevent addiction, which should be a state and federal responsibility, including efforts to control the over-prescribing of narcotic pain pills by physicians and counseling patients about the risks of opioid use even when needed after surgery or injury. Meanwhile, more Americans are dying from drug overdoses each year than from car crashes and gun violence. Two-thirds of those deaths are blamed on opioids, and some are happening here in our communities. It will take more than lawsuits to change that.]]>brook@sailingmagazine.net (Ozaukee Press)EditorialsThu, 12 Oct 2017 15:52:47 +0000